Bush War Adviser Says Draft Worth a Look

Breitbart ^ | August 10, 2007 | RICHARD LARDNER

[2ndDivisionVet]

Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday. "I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

The repeated deployments affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military, Lute said.

"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all- volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."

The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re- established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.

[perseid 67]

No.

Are you a woman?

[dragnet2]

I didn't think so.

BTW, there is a lot more to the military than just serving on the front lines. You think all those that were drafted during Vietnam all served on the "front lines"?

[2ndDivisionVet]

The DUmmies are going nuts on this story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2949180

As are the HuffandBlo idiots:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/comments/2007/08/10/60020

[perseid 67]

Answer my question are you a woman?

[dragnet2]

No. Now answer my questions.

[Fishrrman]

We are not prepared to take down Iran, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and Islamic Africa. Therefore, we have no need of a draft.

And, when the time comes to in fact take them down, we will not be able to do so withOUT a draft.

The struggle we are beginning to become involved in (and I chose those words carefully) is of such magnitude that it cannot be won with the handful of conscripts that we call a military today.

To eventually defeat and remove Islam from the earth will take an effort no less than the equal of, a commitment that involves sacrifices no less than that of World War II. Probably moreso.

Lots of erstwhile tough talkers about the war and about Islam on this forum. But whisper "D-R-A-F-T" and you see those of draft age grow defensive VERY quickly. Young conservative males run from such notions only a tad more slowly than do young liberal males (laughs).

Disclaimer: I myself was drafted - not once, but indeed TWICE. First time in October 1969, second time in May of 1970. I didn't like it then, but it probably sowed the seeds of my later "conservative conversion".

No draft until we need one. Agreed.

But sooner or later in this conflict, we WILL need one.

- John

[perseid 67]

I know that there is more to the military than glamorous hand to hand combat. Everyone in the military is a hero as far as I’m concerned.

Military must do what is necessary to win those who want women on the front lines do not want to win.

[CGTRWK]

Just riding over bumps in a humvee all day is a hell of a strain on the body out when you have 60 pounds of armor, camelbak, and vest yanking your spine with every jolt. Fit, 180 pound men are coming home with back injuries. A woman with half the body strength facing that kind of strain isn’t going to come out of that with a sore back, she’s going to come out of it unable to stand up.

It ain’t sitting in air conditioned cruisers in short sleeves.

[dragnet2]

But whisper "D-R-A-F-T" and you see those of draft age grow defensive VERY quickly.

Not all though, as it must be remembered, almost 18,000 Vietnam draftees were killed.

[dragnet2]

So your saying females should not serve in the military, or should only be given cushy jobs?

[dragnet2]

You think all those that were drafted during Vietnam all served on the “front lines”?

[perseid 67]

Are there any cushy jobs in the military?

From what I seen, everyone works hard in conditions which are unbearable.

Were you ever in the military?

[perseid 67]

Seen= have seen

[familyop]

dragnet2 wrote:
"The chances of females having to physically engage with people/criminals in law enforcement is much greater than would be in the military."

...not in a combat specialty during a war.

"Hand to hand combat is nearly a thing of the past in the military, where as on the streets, it can be an everyday occurrence. That's why I said, If they can be cops, they can be drafted into the army.

There is much more time and emphasis on hand-to-hand (incl. bayonets) combat training and training with various kinds of weapons in combat specialties. There have been quite a few trials with women in combat specialties in various armies of the world (including our own). Those did not work out. The differences in such trials are apparent on the first day. And remember that you mentioned physical engagement.

"BTW, have you ever served in the military?"

I've done both.

[dragnet2]

Just riding over bumps in a humvee all day is a hell of a strain on the body out when you have 60 pounds of armor, camelbak, and vest yanking your spine with every jolt.

So it's your position that females are not even capable of riding around in a humvees all day?

. OK...

But what about a female law enforcement officer, wearing body armor, that pulls over 4 two-time loser paroles, that just committed two brutal murders in a armed robbery attempt? There is no back up due to 6 other crimes have just gone down. Should she confront them? Hide? Should she quit and apply for another job?

Since she is not even capable of riding in a military vehicle all day, should she even be in this position?

[perseid 67]

A female cop does not need body armor to write me a speeding ticket!

[dragnet2]

not in a combat specialty during a war.

What every your point is you're wrong. Again, the chances of females having to *physically* engage with people/criminals in law enforcement is *much* greater than would be in the military." I am speaking in general term here, not specialty crap.

You see, in the military, you generally just shoot your opponent. There is little rolling around having a punch out in the military with the enemy. Didn't say it doesn't happen, but in law enforcement, it can happen *every night*.

This is not even debateable.

[dragnet2]

A female cop does not need body armor to write me a speeding ticket!

She not only needs it, in any professional department, it's required. It's clear you haven't a clue here. Almost all LE departments require it, and it's been that way a long time.

[familyop]

Is the Pentagon still refusing to release pregnancy numbers? Those were at unacceptable highs before 2003, and the numbers are highly likely to be worse now. We can’t afford the lack of personnel in units (under strength) and can’t afford the extra expenses.

And BTW, why kill even more marriages and finish off fatherhood by advocating drafting women? There’s no policy for drafting women. It’s not going to happen. Give it up.

[George W. Bush]

As many of us gun advocates have painstakingly pointed out over the years, the militia is NOT the organized military of the US, whether active or reserve. It is “every able-bodied citizen.”

Precisely. Of course, the Founders saw the militia (call it National Guard if you must) as the primary defender of the Union of states. They wrote about the dangers of standing federal armies at some length. Prior to the end of WW II, our country soundly followed that advice. Since WW II, our standing army has been used in a series of undeclared wars, few of which have been resolved victoriously.

The purpose of such a call by Congress would be in response to all-out war declared by Congress. It would be a dire circumstance.

Not to get all RP'd about it but this is why Ron Paul advocated declaring war formally when the vote for Iraq came. Afghanistan fell more under the heading of banditry, like the old Barbary pirates. The point is well-taken whether you like or hate Ron Paul. The citizenry would take it more seriously, you wouldn't have the I-was-for-it-before-I-was-against-it nonsense from the Dims, you could focus national purpose on a true war effort. In addition, some of the troubling things that have occurred with noncombatants and with the Patriot Act could have been resolved more properly under a formal state of war.

We are not prepared to take down Iran, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, and Islamic Africa. Therefore, we have no need of a draft.

We have no need of a draft unless we're prepared to succeed not only in Iraq but in Iran, Pakistan, and perhaps Saudi Arabia. And that would require garrisoning those countries for decades. No tidy Shock And Awe air campaigns but a ruthless leveling of some of their major cities and dealing harshly with their clerics.